research

Hot off the press copies of the Handbook on the Politics of Higher Education

After a break from blogging to attend the recent and quite fantastic World Cup in Russia, I’m back with the good news that I have a new publication out.

This is a book chapter co-written with my supervisor Professor Creso Sá and is titled Scientific nationalism in a globalizing world.

It’s part of a hefty new Handbook on the Politics of Higher Education, which also features chapters by luminaries in the field such as Susan Robertson, Rosemary Deem, Roger King and many, many others. The aim of the Handbook is straightforward: to address the growing politicization of higher education and offer a variety of perspectives on the politics of higher education that will improve our understanding and analysis.

Our chapter, part of a section on political economy and global governance, dives deeper into the politics of academic science. We take two notions – scientific nationalism and scientific globalism – that have different ways of conceptualising the purpose of science as well as how and why it is supported (and by whom) – but which both in different ways help to explain patterns seen in science policies around the world.

On the one hand, scientific nationalism offers a viewpoint of science as being of critical importance to nation states – even as they are increasingly intertwined in global affairs, the idea is that support for academic science will enhance national competitiveness or innovation.

On the other hand, the idea of scientific globalism is one that derives from universalist ideas of the pursuit of science being borderless and not something that can or should be privatized or commercialized. Cross-national academic communities of scientists working together on ‘grand challenges’ would be an excellent example of scientific globalism.

We studied national science policies in twenty countries across all continents and with a very wide range of economic and political contexts. Despite this diversity, we found the depth of commonalities across the policies remarkable. For instance, almost all of the policies expressed a desire to become (or remain) globally competitive, with great importance placed on science as a tool to achieve that goal. From Saudi Arabia to South Africa and from Canada to China, this positioning was embraced around the world.

In addition to similarities across the policies, we also identified a number of tensions that arise from the dual existence of both logics of scientific nationalism and scientific globalism. Whilst scientific nationalism is well anchored in a global institutional order, there was clear friction with ideas stemming from more globalist thinking. This is encapsulated well in how the policies talk about the mobility of scientists and researchers. Nations want their scientists to cooperate globally and to be able to travel around the world, but many countries also expressed a desire for said scientists to ultimately return to their home country to utilize the skills and experience gained abroad.

Written at the end of 2016 and start of 2017, we end the chapter by considering some areas for future research in this topic. For example, how will science policy making be affected by the emerging politics of neo-nationalism or nativism (e.g. Brexit in the UK, Trump in the US to name just two mid-2010s events)? And – worryingly – could scientific globalism be under threat from the rise of xenophobic right-wing populism?

The Handbook has had some very nice reviews already, being described by Simon Marginson as ‘much the best available collection of its kind’ (praise indeed!).

This is a much needed book – indeed, the first of its kind – to support researchers exploring a range of issues in the field in authoritarian settings.

Dr Del Sordi has experience doing research in Kazakhstan, which adds a welcome Central Asian flavour to much of the book’s content.

The book achieves two equally useful tasks, being divided into sections that enable the authors to reflect on their individual experiences as well as offering advice and guidance to other researchers. Bear in mind that it’s mainly written from the perspective of ‘western’ researchers, although I think the authors do a good job of making clear the limits and scope involved in an endeavour such as this one. I liked this nugget, for example:

…as western researchers we may too easily read authoritarianism into such requirements, and forget the often draconian procedures of our own authorities vis-à-vis non-residents (p.22)

This Open Access book offers a synthetic reflection on the authors’ fieldwork experiences in seven countries within the framework of ‘Authoritarianism in a Global Age’, a major comparative research project. It responds to the demand for increased attention to methodological rigor and transparency in qualitative research, and seeks to advance and practically support field research in authoritarian contexts. Without reducing the conundrums of authoritarian field research to a simple how-to guide, the book systematically reflects and reports on the authors’ combined experiences in (i) getting access to the field, (ii) assessing risk, (iii) navigating ‘red lines’, (iv) building relations with local collaborators and respondents, (v) handling the psychological pressures on field researchers, and (vi) balancing transparency and prudence in publishing research. It offers unique insights into this particularly challenging area of field research, makes explicit how the authors handled methodological challenges and ethical dilemmas, and offers recommendations where appropriate.

If you are a developing Asian state, the answer apparently seems to be ‘yes’. This has been suggested as a strategy for Asian countries in achieving their research and development goals. Resources for scientific research, whether undertaken in universities or in the private sector, should be carefully allocated and targeted towards specific areas for priority development.

Here is well-known international higher education academic Philip Altbach writing about China and India back in 2001:

One strategy available to China and India is targeting specific areas for intensive research and development investment. These areas are generally in fields that can directly benefit the economy and that build on existing strengths in the country.

And here’s another academic, William Cummings, on the growth of a new academic centre in the Asia-Pacific region in 2010:

An interesting line of speculation is that the different academic systems of the Asia-Pacific region might develop distinctive directions of excellence in the decades ahead… China is notable for its achievements in space and in computer-related areas. The Philippines is known for its training of doctors and other health personnel. An infusion of increased resources might allow the country to gain prominence in the health-related sciences.

In recognition of the recent Day of Science in Kyrgyzstan, President Almazbek Atambayev is also weighing in:

Science is of paramount importance in the formation of human capital that is an important factor in accelerating social and economic development of any country. In Kyrgyzstan, it is necessary to concentrate the whole scientific potential on priority directions for the country.

Three narratives from the last 15 years, all suggesting concentration and specialization in some form or another. I think this raises interesting questions around:

defining national research/science priorities in an interconnected and interdependent world

the benefits and drawbacks of focussing investment in a small number of fields vs sharing resources more widely, if also more thinly

the relative weight placed on economic development vs social development

whether this push towards concentration is visible in other regions of the world

the role that universities can play either in supporting government policy or developing their own priorities drawing on their local, national and global networks

Tajik researcher Alexander Sodiqov, a PhD student at the University of Toronto (Canada) was arrested on Monday and his whereabouts are currently unknown. He was in Khorog, regional capital of the Autonomous Region of Gorno Badakshan in eastern Tajikistan, undertaking academic research as part of an Economic & Social Research Council (UK Research Council) funded project on recent political turmoil in the region.

http://scholarsforsodiqov.blogspot.co.uk/ – for scholars of Central Asian affairs who share a concern for Sodiqov in particular and for scholarship about Central Asia in general, please email ed[dot)schatz@utoronto[dot)ca with your NAME, UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION, and COUNTRY to be added.

Please do what you can to raise awareness about this unacceptable situation, and help call for Alexander’s release, and for improved relations between national and local governments in Tajikistan and researchers wishing to analyse developments in the country. If you’re on Twitter, use #FreeAlexSodiqov.

The Avaaz petition has the following English language translation:

OPEN LETTER

We, a group of Tajik students and graduates of foreign higher educational institutions, are concerned about our friend and colleague, Alexander Sadiqov, who was arrested June 16, 2014 by law enforcement agencies in Khorog, Tajikistan. We are alarmed by the fact that the research activities of Alexander Sadykov, aimed at exploring the positive experience of the countries of Central Asia in relation to conflict resolution measures, has been labeled by law enforcement agencies of Tajikistan as an act of espionage supported by foreign countries.

Evidence to the contrary includes his professional and scholarly writing on the internet as well as his prolific writing as a journalist which he has been very public about sharing. Moreover, according to Professor John Heathershaw of the University of Exeter, (UK), Mr. Sodiqov possesses all of the required documents confirming that the study was approved by the Academic Council of the University.

We welcome the efforts of the Government of Tajikistan in building an open democratic society and note that the process also involves open exchanges of ideas, knowledge and information. Open exchange is impossible without the participation of the academic and educataional institutions and associated scholars and students of which Mr. Sodiqov belongs to as a current PhD student at Toronto University.

The ongoing detention of Alexander Sodiqov makes us – students, young scientists and researchers, feel at risk and vulnerable as we conduct our research and other related activities both abroad and in Tajikistan. Having the privilige of getting an advanced degree, we, as a group, always try to use our knowledge and skills for the prosperity of our country. The vast majority of the citizens of Tajikistan who are educated abroad, come back home and continue to make contributions to the development of the country and civil society within education, the economy, health care and many other areas.

Concerning the arrest of Mr. Sodiqov, we – students and graduates of foreign universities – respectfully urge Tajik law enforcement agencies to inform the public about the fate of Alexander Sodiqov and take all possible measures for his release. We also hope that the detention of our colleague – a PhD student and known researcher on Central Asia – is an isolated case that will be resolved quickly by Tajik law enforcement agencies.

With this letter, we, as representatives of science and education, also call on the leadership of the country to support research conducted by students in Tajikistan by both national and foreign universities